Is Anarchy the Answer? With Davi Barker

Thanks for the effort of elevating the discussion, you deep understanding of the subject matter is abundantly apparent, as it is reflected in you
bright references I particularly liked your mentioning Russia. I think that people should stay like you in a cold war delusion.

I would be extremely interested in any of those that make the point of clamoring for a Republic would be more clear on what they mean by that and why
they focus on distinguishing it from a democracy (since both systems can co-exist). Republic is more about delegation of representation (not the
process of expressing political intentions) and Democracy is more on the process of validating policy by a (in my view misleading and skewed
expression of the people's will).

It is very promising that you got a star for that bright remark and that you take your time to unleash your knowledge to us, the supposed fools...

I believe that is proper form to accept the popular meaning of anarchy because the term serves as umbrella to many distinct views that should best be
defined clearly as to permit a concise discussion.

Even in the text you transcribed I see many contradictions and a lack of expression on how the system can be sustained and scaled to permit more
complex social structures. If anything is understood is that without a clear direction and order there is no possibility to go beyond basic
systems.

PS: Have you seen the game RUST, I like to see people play it as it clearly expresses the problems of anarchy, establishing mutual beneficial
alliances and the impact of rulers, most notably the server admins. (You can see videos of it on youtube)

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic!! I know you may not want it that way, but it is. I will have to agree with you
tho....things have changed. Yes they have...and Im certainly not in favor of that!!! Forgive me, I'm a tad bit lazy and tired to address everything
tonight! Here is the late Aaron Russo .... i hope u get something from this wise man

The pop culture perception of anarchy is lawlessness and chaos. The actual political philosophy is community governance. "Anarchy" means "no
rulers," not "no rules." The community governs itself, and the workers control society. Criminals would still be punished. There will still be the
occasional sociopath or disturbed person. However, it will settle quite a few of them. Inject some security into people's lives you will find that
their propensity towards crime as a survival mechanism pretty much evaporates.

A good website to check out if you are interested in the general philosophy is CrimethInc.

And to keep the thread moving along on a positive note, some humour related to the subject at hand never hurts

edit on 13-2-2014 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)

So basically now anarchy is communism by another name?

Is this like communists becoming liberals becoming progressives becoming liberals becoming ... anarchists now because they realize that they need
another rebranding?

I would be extremely interested in any of those that make the point of clamoring for a Republic would be more clear on what they mean by that and why
they focus on distinguishing it from a democracy (since both systems can co-exist). Republic is more about delegation of representation (not the
process of expressing political intentions) and Democracy is more on the process of validating policy by a (in my view misleading and skewed
expression of the people's will).

It is very promising that you got a star for that bright remark and that you take your time to unleash your knowledge to us, the supposed fools...

A direct democracy is the system that Athens had where everyone had a direct, single vote to impact policy. The reason that Athens ultimately failed
as a political entity was because it quickly became apparent that when everyone has a single, equal vote that whoever can demagogue the majority of
those votes rules, even if the majority is only by a slender, single vote. Not only that but voters can also form blocks of votes that give them
immense power over the single vote quickly rendering the single vote unimportant or at times depending on the circumstances, extremely important our
of all proportion.

You can see the block effect at work most clearly in small voting pools like our SCOTUS.

What the Founders attempted to do in creating a Republic was to check and balance the downsides of direct democracy with the liberty of the franchise.
So, the created three branches of government and complex electoral systems that sought to involve all levels of society (citizen and state) and
balance them proportionally. The idea was to ameliorate the tyranny of the majority while still allowing the people to have their say and direct
representation with the House. The states were also to get their direct representation and say with the Senate (this has since been destroyed,
unbalancing the system). The president was supposed to reflect both the voice of the people and the effect of the states. And the courts were to be
above it all, a check on both other branches.

They were supposed to be at odds because it was assumed they would be, and thus, anything they could agree on would have to be something that was
necessary. It was also assumed there wouldn't be all that much they would agree on. The real governance was supposed to be done at the state and
local levels, not the federal.

When we clamor for a Republic, what we are most likely clamoring for is for less federal control and more local and state control. It was never
intended for the election of the President to be more important to the average citizen than the election of his own governor and/or mayor. The feds
should be less involved in the micro business of the states and more preoccupied with the business of dealing with foreign powers and making sure no
state takes advantage of the other, and that needs to only take a few short months of every year.

I'm not a US citizen so my view is only better than yours because I tend to see beyond my belly button, nation states are in the out people that
still spend energy defending boarders are small minded if not as a way to expedite the betterment of all mankind (or as to prevent the usurpation by
despots).

I really think you don't understand what you are waving as a flag, I like constitutions and the US without revision is the best there is
(anarcho-communism can be constitutional also) as for the republic we could say that anarcho-communism is also republican as different communes will
need representatives as to establish the next communal layers and so forth the only disparity is that republic tends to be the next step after
monarchy and so is interestingly linked to a nation state concept (boarders and normally single head of state) while anarcho-communism is more focused
in the people and dissemination of power, a head of state would make only sense as to facilitate dialog with other nation states (but would have very
limited power in its function).

A direct democracy is the system that Athens had where everyone had a direct, single vote to impact policy. The reason that Athens ultimately failed
as a political entity was because it quickly became apparent that when everyone has a single, equal vote that whoever can demagogue the majority of
those votes rules, even if the majority is only by a slender, single vote. Not only that but voters can also form blocks of votes that give them
immense power over the single vote quickly rendering the single vote unimportant or at times depending on the circumstances, extremely important our
of all proportion.

There is also another problem, the quality of voting is dependent on the education of the voters, in their capacity to make decisions, that is
extremely problematic. For example this is why most nations dread referendums (or use them for demagogy).

What the Founders attempted to do in creating a Republic was to check and balance the downsides of direct democracy with the liberty of the
franchise

The concept of direct democracy came later, and to a point it still remains technological difficult to archive but yes the idea was to curb the issues
with democratic elections. The concept and understanding of separations of powers already existed...

My view is that the States started to lose too much of their independence to the central federal government and so the Republic was eroded and turned
into what it is now. Centralization facilitates corruption and abuse.

I fully agree with you, but see no chance for an orderly reversal of the process now.

The pop culture perception of anarchy is lawlessness and chaos. The actual political philosophy is community governance. "Anarchy" means "no
rulers," not "no rules." The community governs itself, and the workers control society. Criminals would still be punished. There will still be the
occasional sociopath or disturbed person. However, it will settle quite a few of them. Inject some security into people's lives you will find that
their propensity towards crime as a survival mechanism pretty much evaporates.

A good website to check out if you are interested in the general philosophy is CrimethInc.

And to keep the thread moving along on a positive note, some humour related to the subject at hand never hurts

edit on 13-2-2014 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)

So basically now anarchy is communism by another name?

Is this like communists becoming liberals becoming progressives becoming liberals becoming ... anarchists now because they realize that they need
another rebranding?

One must only realize that what separates communism from anarchy is ... wait for it ... Utopia. It's easy to pick out the linear thinkers (not you
Ketsuko) in this discussion.

A professor asked our class a question: Place yourself mentally on the starship Enterprise. How many of you are wearing red shirts? Raise your
hands. -laughter-

Any other type of anarchic organization ceases to be anarchy. For example Anarcho-Communism provides for more complex and stable structures to emerge,
becoming scalable in a decentralized way.

edit on 13-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Not with the absence of State or other centralized political entity. Of course, there is always the risk, through formalization and especially
standardization of practices, to fall into Statist socialism, but that's what the anarchist part seeks to solve... that through a constant critique
of the dominant practices and views, you get to maintain a relative balance that allows for prosperity yet liberty as well. The problem is that
anarcho-communist, aside from -at least to a certain extent- in Spain in the '30s and during the post WW1 days in Ukraine (with the well-known
"Makhnovist" movement), never really got to become a well-spread form of organizing, enough to prove how good can it float. There's been often
reactionary, authoritarian or capitalist forces keeping it from getting big. At least in a complex industrial society.

Well all these views we have of utopic societies will mostly be impractical in direct competition with more aggressive systems (even if those systems
are of inferior quality for the majority of participants they can always supplant more egalitarian system or at least maintain an allure for those
more individualistic minded, or with a shorter views).

This is why socialism is even today (under a lot of indecision and facing the consequences and blame for being led by the nose by corporative interest
into the economic woes they created in many nations) seems the more rational system in a diverse and unfair ecosystem.

My view is that in the chance of a collapse that brings nations low enough, it will lead to anarchy and a fragmentation of state structures (like the
Spanish civil war) only a situation like that will permit moving into a anarcho-communist, since major interests will never relinquish private
property rights. There is a threshold of cultural background that if destroyed will lead to a repetition of history, from war lords into kings and so
forth (like Somalia).

Failing that we will probably continue in painful path of conflicting nationalistic economies with inflations and busts and slowly moving toward a
global corporatist conglomerate with few social/ecological consideration beyond public relations appeasing of the mases. A civilizational collapse is
inevitable the longer it takes the worst it will be.

Anarcho-capitalism is a joke that mostly developed on the Internet and never really made achievements in reality, unless you consider organized crime
and black markets and pirates as "agorism". This is a very controversial ideology, mostly due to its own implicit contradictions.

Explanation:

Capitalism derives its interest from creation of added value (overvalue), which requires, firsthand, to have established forms of private property, on
a large scale. A bunch of people produce water filters? Under State law those water filters get owned by business owner (or shareholder), who'll get
his profits from selling them, so Alex Jones will get his cut (lol). But this is a deprivation of labor, inherently, because the workers are being
instantly cut off from the very water filters they produce.

Private property is inherently abstract and authoritarian (not anarchistic by any mean). It exists only because it is validated, legitimized and
especially enforced through a dominant legal-political system. It is an absolute political "fiat" value, just as absolute as the Law of any State, but
set up and maintained by relativistic forces like the Courts, city councils, Intellectual Property bodies, the Police and the prison system. Just as
Faith in the Christian world, is made of the work of the priest class and its many benevolent associates and minions.

Value and property is a set of beliefs, enforced through political relations that usually involve coercion, despotism, but also "friendlier" ways like
co-option, integration and retribution. In our society both work along together towards REIFICATION of the authoritarian capitalist value, as well as
the value of goods it produces.

...or you may as well go have a walk in a forest or a field and try to find physical, natural evidence of any private property. There isn't. That's
why anarcho-communism was always more realistic (though not much realized on a large scale), because it fuses the acknowledgement of the authoritarian
nature of property along with the authoritarian nature of the State, and seeks to build a society without these fundamental despotisms. Because there
cannot be, THEORETICALLY, stealing, rape or killing when there is no ownership of land, goods or living bodies, there is no need for invading a
foreign country when there are NO BORDERS, and that land belongs to everybody and nobody at the same time. You don't need a military to defend your
place or your siblings where everybody openly carries a mean to defend themselves, may it be a bow or a gun.

Anarchy seeks to put politics ENTIRELY back into people's hands, with no compromises or other conditions.

So anarcho-capitalists do not seek to break the fiction of property (private or public), but rather to deal with it through their own self-determined
terms. To have relative freedoms accordingly with the property laws dominant in a society. To at best negociate with them from an outside perspective,
without negating them. Liberty, accordingly with the principle of property.

Well all these views we have of utopic societies will mostly be impractical in direct competition with more aggressive systems (even if those systems
are of inferior quality for the majority of participants they can always supplant more egalitarian system or at least maintain an allure for those
more individualistic minded, or with a shorter views).

This is why socialism is even today (under a lot of indecision and facing the consequences and blame for being led by the nose by corporative interest
into the economic woes they created in many nations) seems the more rational system in a diverse and unfair ecosystem.

My view is that in the chance of a collapse that brings nations low enough, it will lead to anarchy and a fragmentation of state structures (like the
Spanish civil war) only a situation like that will permit moving into a anarcho-communist, since major interests will never relinquish private
property rights. There is a threshold of cultural background that if destroyed will lead to a repetition of history, from war lords into kings and so
forth (like Somalia).

Failing that we will probably continue in painful path of conflicting nationalistic economies with inflations and busts and slowly moving toward a
global corporatist conglomerate with few social/ecological consideration beyond public relations appeasing of the mases. A civilizational collapse is
inevitable the longer it takes the worst it will be.

edit on 13-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

I don't believe in any utopia, at least not one that I can't live out from directly on a here-and-now basis. And this type of utopia is very much
alive these days.

Yes it is conflicting with -and being conflicted by- authoritarian forces of greed, but they still haven't managed to eradicate this internal
contradiction (there's reason to believe the opposite may happen).

I totally agree that it is only through some kind of collapse or fragmentation of the dominant global State that anarchist-communistic forms can take
shape and spread far and wide... probably just out of necessity. But not every collapse, especially not a collapse managed by the bankers, can be
liberating for you and me. It can get really bad unless some people manage to dilute or break monopolies and get to defend themselves, perhaps. Like
the stuff that happened recently in North Carolina, for an instance.

Collapse is where we're going, one way or another....

Oh and BTW, for anyone interested in actual real anarchy, the biggest, fiercest, craziest anarchist in the US that I heard of these days is Sean
Swain, gubernatorial candidate for Ohio, FROM JAIL! More precisely, on a
long-term jail sentence in an Ultramax State prison

He's got a deeply more radical view on anarchy than those phonies up there. I'm even taking a major risk linking to this...

Clearly it's the people that think that their disputes are solved with the barrel of a gun, who inhibit anarchy...or true freedom as I like to call
it, from becoming a livable reality. The fearful carry arms in my eyes. Unfortunately fear is what drives a resistance to change(RC) as well.

I am quite aware that guns are here to stay, solely due to the RC factor. And too bad huh? If only we didn't always have to have a penis size
competition to get a head in evolution...no pun intended.

Guns don't solve disputes ... they end them. So do rocks, spears, arrows, knives. It's all about efficiency. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a
person opposed to anarchy. I find it as silly an idea as communism. It's an unfortunate distraction from reality, which are the present-day agendas
of liberalism and conservatism. Nothin wrong with considering an ideology as long as one doesn't forget it's an abstract concept.

My ideal lifestyle would define me as a separatist, but I too much love humanity and the trappings of functional society.

Anarchy is a far left ideology. It is anti-capitalist, anti-government and, using the literal meaning, anti-hierarchy: an- (opposite, against) archy
(hierarchy: authority, rulers, bosses, dictators, aristocrats... an authoritative system). The logical disconnect happens with the so called right
wing anarchists and capitalism, they embrace capitalism which is hierarchical. It's an oxymoron.

Can this ideology (right-wing anti-government) be called radicalism? Absolutely. This ideology fights the status quo which is what radicalism is. But
anarchism? No. Absolutely not. As I stated above that word means more than anti-government/anti-state.

"Workers of the world...RELAX". HA! At that point, I guess the do'ers, will then take over. That's what I imagine freedom to be. Also, to have no
financial restraints...obviously still facing resource restraints. Money and the need to work to obtain it, to gain basic modern living arrangements
and comforts, kinda really sucks.

The idea is to use what we today generate as waste and overhead* as to provide not only basic needs but a bit more even if not intended to satisfy
every wants (an increase in personal freedoms will also be liberating), permitting and prompting people to pursue their interests to their own
satisfaction. It is only reasonable that a world with less competition and exploitation will be more peaceful and rewarding. We would also see an
increase in education and quality of information.

*In the form of surplus (excess production, unwanted or inferior products, artificial tariffs, transportation, subsidies, etc), social and economical
lubricants (this includes all sort of corruption, lobbing and wooing) , marketing and public relations, IP/labor/property legal costs, competition for
resources (war, industrial espionage, security) and many unnecessary imprisonment (theft etc would be extremely reduced) and many other aspects that
emerge as to maintain the present system.

No it isn't it is the absent of any ideology beyond individual freedom to do as you want.

It is anti-capitalist

No it is not, even if capitalism in part requires ownership rights and in an anarchic society owning things can be daunting as they require individual
enforcement of that ownership. It would be extremely hard to get a complex legal system off the ground and working when the premise is that you are
free to do as you like, some soft of things could be kept under control but only if generally seen as beneficial and so enforced by everyone.

anti-government

Not really anti-government but an extremely reduction of to regard everyone as a personal state, as with today it would be possible to establish a
mutual agreed bureaucracy to keep somethings going but since all the states would be at the same level only very significant goals would get any
traction. (as above)

You are cherry picking some characteristics that are under anarchy only dependent on the individuals needs as I said before anarchy is not a stable
system and left alone it would evolve into something more scalable, in that you may be right, left aligned policies are more appealing to the general
population (as much as the right aligned ones are appealing to those that have power or aspire to have over others). But it would be a crap game to
see what would the anarchic system devolve into, my view is that it depends in the culture level of the society too low and you would see people align
(as before) to the right, if some modicum quality of memory and information is available then people will tend to the left. This is validated by a
pressure toward the center that we see in the system today (even in our present dire circumstances, that are propitious to extremes).

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.